Global Issues in Different

Sectors
• Globalization of Different MNCs
• International Trade
• World Summits
• Globalization is arguably the most prominent buzzword in contemporary times.
Nowadays, it is so commonplace for persons within the academia, government and
corporations to employ the term globalization uncritically. Given its popularity,
globalization is a much deployed but loosely defined concept.
• To some globalization is the “latest stage of imperialism” (Sivanandan, 1999, p .5);
• to others, globalization is the spread of western modernity” (see Scholte, 2005, p.16).
• Globalization no doubt, is the ultimate essentially contested concept. That this is the
case could be gleaned from the fact that globalization is at once employed to describe a
phenomenon, a process and a philosophy (Khan, 2003).
• Globalization also has a multiplicity of dimensions, namely the political, the economic
and the cultural.
• The point of this perspective is that globalization is restructuring our social space
or geography from one that is predominantly territorial to one that is increasingly
“transnational”. In other worlds, whereas people normally have most of their
interactions and affiliations in the past with others who share the same territorial
space (e.g. the village, town and nation), there is massive burgeoning of
interactions and affiliations across this territories. What emerges clearly from the
foregoing analyses is that globalization has brought about the intensification of
global relations.
Global Ethics
• Compared to globalization, ethics is a fairly straight forward concept. Therefore,
its meaning is easier to explicate. “Strictly speaking ethics is the investigation into
how we ought to live” (Birsch, 2002, p.1).
• Global ethics according to Kimberly Hutchings (2010, p.1) is a field of theoretical
inquiry that addresses ethical questions and problems arising out of global
interconnections and interdependence of the world’s population.
• Implicit in Hutchings‟ definition is the idea that interconnections between
populations give rise to ethical question and problems. This observation leads to
two useful ideas that could inform a conceptual framework that seeks to explain
how globalization creates “shrinking distances and expanding obligations” (Nicole
Hassoun, 2012).
Disadvantages of Globalization
The first normative question elicited by globalization concerns the character of globalization itself. Critics have
argued that the currently unfolding neoliberal globalization concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, while it
leaves the majority in the condition of poverty (Colado, 2006).

Although supporters of globalization paint a rosy picture of a globalised world characterized by the spread of
liberal democracy, peace and prosperity, globalization has actually resulted in radical inequality, a deepening of
exclusions “caused by inequalities that show the world to be a fragmented space where some people benefit at
the expense of others (Ibid, p.33.). It is for this reason that critics have described globalisation as a process
driven by advanced capitalist countries to perpetuate their political and economic hegemony.

Globalization will be condemned on the account that exploited populations are treated as “means to an end”
and not as “end in themselves”.
• Given this moral shortcoming of globalization, critics of the presently existing globalization has
advocated for a different form of globalization, employing terms such “alternative globalization”,
“civilizing globalization”, “globalization from below” etc. The World Commission on the Social
Dimension of Globalization, for instance, advocates a fairer globalization that would create
opportunities for all.
Economic Globalization
• Central to the increasing integration of the world community into a single interlinked community is economic
globalization, i.e., the widening and deepening of international flows of trade, capital, and technology within
a single integrated market (Petras, 2001) Following the collapse of Soviet socialism and the consequent
triumph of capitalism, the International financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund through neoliberal policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization
have forcibly imposed the laissez-faire capitalist mode of economic organization on societies in different
parts of the globe, especially in Sub-Saharan-Africa, Latin America and post-communist Eastern Europe.

• Interestingly, the forcible spread of capitalist ethos, what Stephen Gill (2008, p. 124) describes as the
emergence of “market civilization” has brought to the front burner the question of democratic deficits in
global economic management. The democratic deficit referred to here is generated by the fact that in the
sphere of economic management, states are increasingly losing their sovereignty as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO) takes over their traditional
functions.
• For instance, the World Bank and the IMF often prescribes unpopular neoliberal policies such as
currency devaluation, subsidy removal and the privatization of strategic public enterprise as
conditionality for providing loans to financially distressed states.

• The unfortunate implication of this is that elected indigenous leaders cede their prerogative
over economic management to unelected officials of international organizations.

• Thus, the insistence on political conditionality which demands liberalization, accountability and
transparency from indebted nations, the IFIs tyrannically imposes their policies on the same
government.

• It is for this reason that Woods and Narlikar speaks of “the new intrusiveness of international
economic organizations”.
• According to the duo: International economic organizations now
address issues which were previously dealt with at the level of
national governments… decisions and policies taken at the
international level are increasingly affecting groups and people within
states.
• Where previously, these people could hold their national
governments to account for policies, they must now look to
international institutions where the decisions are being made. The
question therefore arises: to whom are these institutions accountable
and are they accountable to those to whom they directly affect?
Calls for a Global Ethic
• From the discussion in the immediately preceding section, it is clear that there
are quite a number of ethical questions and problems arising from global
interdependence and interconnection.
• To manage these ethical problems, some scholars have suggested that the time
has come for the world to develop a global ethic, i.e., a set of universally
accepted principles that could provide the basis for regulating global interactions.
• According to Gephardt (2011) the global ethic perspective assumes that a set of
shared ethical values and standards is indispensable for the cohesion of society
and for global peace and justice. There is of course some merit in idea; a shared
set of ethical values will make for peace and harmony at the global level.
• Business Ethics and Corporate Governance